Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ESC Congress

Discover the latest news and 2024 updates on managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation and arterial disease. 
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology

26-12-2023 | Review

Stepping towards pollen DNA metabarcoding: A breakthrough in forensic sciences

Authors: Qandeel Zaineb Wasti, Muhammad Farooq Sabar, Abeera Farooq, Muhammad Umer Khan

Published in: Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology

Login to get access

Abstract

This review is engaged in determining the capability of plant pollen as a significant source of evidence for the linkage between suspects and crime location in forensic sciences. Research and review articles were collected from Google Scholar, the Web of Science, and PubMed. Articles were searched using specific keywords such as “Forensic Palynology,” “Pollen metabarcoding,” “Plant forensics,” and “Pollen” AND “criminal investigation.” Boolean logic was also utilized to narrow the articles to be included in this review article. Through the literature and exploratory research, it has been observed in the current study that with advancements in technology, forensic palynology has found its application in creating an association between the crime scene and suspected individuals to have a link to it, as pollen DNA is a long-lasting investigative tool that can effectively help forensic investigations. Moreover, the literature shows that the DNA of pollen and spores has helped forensic scientists link suspects to crime scenes, and the introduction of pollen DNA metabarcoding tools has eased the efforts of palynologists to analyze pollen DNA. The introduction of DNA metabarcoding techniques to analyze pollen from plants has helped identify the geological locations of the plants and ultimately identify the culprit.

Graphical abstract

Literature
1.
2.
Jordan D, Mills D. Past, present, and future of DNA typing for analyzing human and non-human forensic samples. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9:646130.
3.
Khan MU, Sabar MF, Baig AA, Ghani MU. Forensic and genetic characterization of mtDNA lineages of Shin, a Unique Ethnic Group in Pakistan. Pak J Zool. 2021;53(1):133.
4.
5.
6.
Carracedo A, Sobrino B, Lareu MV. Forensic DNA typing technologies: a review. Handbook of Analytical Separations. 2008;6:945–57.CrossRef
7.
8.
Miller SE, Hausmann A, Hallwachs W, Janzen DH. Advancing taxonomy and bioinventories with DNA barcodes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1702):20150339.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Polling M, Sin M, de Weger LA, Speksnijder AG, Koenders MJ, de Boer H, et al. DNA metabarcoding using nrITS2 provides highly qualitative and quantitative results for airborne pollen monitoring. Sci Total Environ. 2022;806:150468.
10.
Milla L, Sniderman K, Lines R, Mousavi-Derazmahalleh M, Encinas-Viso F. Pollen DNA metabarcoding identifies regional provenance and high plant diversity in Australian honey. Ecol Evol. 2021;11(13):8683–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Bell KL, Loeffler VM, Brosi BJ. An rbcL reference library to aid in the identification of plant species mixtures by DNA metabarcoding. Applications in plant sciences. 2017;5(3):1600110.CrossRef
12.
Leontidou K, Vokou D, Sandionigi A, Bruno A, Lazarina M, De Groeve J, et al. Plant biodiversity assessment through pollen DNA metabarcoding in Natura 2000 habitats (Italian Alps). Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):18226.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Gous A, Eardley CD, Johnson SD, Swanevelder DZ, Willows-Munro S. Floral hosts of leaf-cutter bees (Megachilidae) in a biodiversity hotspot revealed by pollen DNA metabarcoding of historic specimens. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(1):e0244973.
14.
Curulli R. A method for the molecular classification of pollen for forensic purposes. PhD diss., Murdoch University; 2022.
15.
Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(2):181–217.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Hebert PDN, Stoeckle MY, Zemlak TS, Francis CM, Godfray C. Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. PLoS Biol. 2004;2(10):e312.
17.
Hebert PD, Cywinska A, Ball SL, DeWaard JR. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2003;270(1512):313–21.CrossRef
18.
Kress WJ. Plant DNA barcodes: applications today and in the future. J Syst Evol. 2017;55(4):291–307.CrossRef
19.
Kress W. DNA barcoding and systematic monographs. Monographic plant systematics: Fundamental assessment of plant biodiversity Berlin: Regnum Vegetabile. 2011;153:49–71.
20.
Bell KL, Burgess KS, Okamoto KC, Aranda R, Brosi BJ. Review and future prospects for DNA barcoding methods in forensic palynology. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016;21:110–6.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Bell KL, De Vere N, Keller A, Richardson RT, Gous A, Burgess KS, et al. Pollen DNA barcoding: current applications and future prospects. Genome. 2016;59(9):629–40.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Newmaster S. BMC Medicine Research article; DNA barcoding detects contamination and substitution in North American herbal products. Published. 2013;11:2013.
23.
Li X, Yang Y, Henry RJ, Rossetto M, Wang Y, Chen S. Plant DNA barcoding: from gene to genome. Biol Rev. 2015;90(1):157–66.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kress WJ, Erickson DL. DNA barcodes: methods and protocols. DNA Barcodes. Springer; 2012. p. 3–8.
25.
Shapcott A, Forster PI, Guymer GP, McDonald WJ, Faith DP, Erickson D, et al. Mapping biodiversity and setting conservation priorities for SE Queensland’s rainforests using DNA barcoding. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0122164.
26.
Morgan R, Flynn J, Sena V, Bull P. Experimental forensic studies of the preservation of pollen in vehicle fires. Sci Justice. 2014;54(2):141–5.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Bryant VM. Use of quaternary proxies in forensic science | Analytical Techniques in Forensic Palynology. In: Elias SA, Mock CJ, editors. Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013. p. 556–66.CrossRef
28.
29.
30.
Mildenhall D, Wiltshire PE, Bryant VM. Forensic palynology: why do it and how it works. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;163(3):163–72.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Milne LA, Bryant V, Mildenhall DC. Forensic palynology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2004.
32.
Riding JB, Chaloner FRS WG, Farley MB, Rich FJ, Strother PK. A biography and obituary of Alfred Traverse (1925–2015). 2016:08–11.
33.
34.
35.
Johnsrud S, Yang H, Nayak A, Waduge PS. Semi-automated segmentation of pollen grains in microscopic images: a tool for three imaging modes. Grana. 2013;52(3):181–91.CrossRef
36.
Li P, Treloar W, Flenley J, Empson L. Towards automation of palynology 2: the use of texture measures and neural network analysis for automated identification of optical images of pollen grains. J Quat Sci. 2004;19(8):755–62.CrossRef
37.
Riding JB, Rawlins BG, Coley KH. Changes in soil pollen assemblages on footwear worn at different sites. Palynology. 2007;31(1):135–51.CrossRef
38.
Ochando J, Munuera M, Carrión JS, Fernández S, Amorós G, Recalde J. Forensic palynology revisited: case studies from semi-arid Spain. Rev Palaeobot Palynol. 2018;259:29–38.CrossRef
39.
Galimberti A, De Mattia F, Bruni I, Scaccabarozzi D, Sandionigi A, Barbuto M, et al. A DNA barcoding approach to characterize pollen collected by honeybees. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e109363.
40.
Handelsman J, Rondon MR, Brady SF, Clardy J, Goodman RM. Molecular biological access to the chemistry of unknown soil microbes: a new frontier for natural products. Chem Biol. 1998;5(10):R245–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Ghosh A, Mehta A, Khan AM. Metagenomic analysis and its applications. Encyclopedia of bioinformatics and computational biology. 2019;3:184–93.CrossRef
42.
Chong CW, Pearce D, Convey P, Yew WC, Tan I. Patterns in the distribution of soil bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences from different regions of Antarctica. Geoderma. 2012;181:45–55.CrossRef
43.
Dethlefsen L, Huse S, Sogin ML, Relman DA. The pervasive effects of an antibiotic on the human gut microbiota, as revealed by deep 16S rRNA sequencing. PLoS biol. 2008;6(11):e280.
44.
Macarron R, Banks MN, Bojanic D, Burns DJ, Cirovic DA, Garyantes T, et al. Impact of high-throughput screening in biomedical research. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2011;10(3):188–95.PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
Vijayan K, Tsou C. DNA barcoding in plants: taxonomy in a new perspective. Curr Sci. 2010:1530–41.
47.
Meyer F, Paarmann D, D’Souza M, Olson R, Glass EM, Kubal M, et al. The metagenomics RAST server–a public resource for the automatic phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenomes. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9(1):1–8.CrossRef
48.
Cuénoud P, Savolainen V, Chatrou LW, Powell M, Grayer RJ, Chase MW. Molecular phylogenetics of Caryophyllales based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid rbcL, atpB, and matK DNA sequences. Am J Bot. 2002;89(1):132–44.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Štorchová H, Olson MS. The architecture of the chloroplast psb A-trn H non-coding region in angiosperms. Plant Syst Evol. 2007;268:235–56.CrossRef
50.
Pang X, Liu C, Shi L, Liu R, Liang D, Li H, et al. Utility of the trnH–psbA intergenic spacer region and its combinations as plant DNA barcodes: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e48833.
51.
Taberlet P, Coissac E, Pompanon F, Brochmann C, Willerslev E. Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Mol Ecol. 2012;21(8):2045–50.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Taberlet P, Coissac E, Pompanon F, Gielly L, Miquel C, Valentini A et al. Power and limitations of the chloroplast trn L (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(3):e14–e.
53.
Kress WJ, Erickson DL. A two-locus global DNA barcode for land plants: the coding rbcL gene complements the non-coding trnH-psbA spacer region. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(6):e508.
54.
55.
Wang XC, Liu C, Huang L, Bengtsson-Palme J, Chen H, Zhang JH, et al. ITS 1: a DNA barcode better than ITS 2 in eukaryotes? Mol Ecol Resour. 2015;15(3):573–86.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Michel C-I, Meyer RS, Taveras Y, Molina J. The nuclear internal transcribed spacer (ITS2) as a practical plant DNA barcode for herbal medicines. J Appl Res Med Aromat Plants. 2016;3(3):94–100.
57.
Álvarez I, Wendel JF. Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003;29(3):417–34.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Schield C, Campelli C, Sycalik J, Randle C, Hughes-Stamm S, Gangitano D. Identification and persistence of Pinus pollen DNA on cotton fabrics: a forensic application. Sci Justice. 2016;56(1):29–34.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Kaur B. Pollen identification using sequencing techniques [Student thesis]; 2022.
60.
Gous A, Swanevelder DZ, Eardley CD, Willows-Munro S. Plant–pollinator interactions over time: pollen metabarcoding from bees in a historic collection. Evol Appl. 2019;12(2):187–97.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Layek U, Das N, Kundu A, Karmakar P. Methods employed in the determining nectar and pollen sources for bees: a review of the global scenario. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2022;115(6):417–26.CrossRef
62.
Gostel MR, Zúñiga JD, Kress WJ, Funk VA, Puente-Lelievre C. Microfluidic enrichment barcoding (MEBarcoding): a new method for high throughput plant DNA barcoding. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):8701.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
Kaškonienė V, Ruočkuvienė G, Kaškonas P, Akuneca I, Maruška A. Chemometric analysis of bee pollen based on volatile and phenolic compound compositions and antioxidant properties. Food Anal Methods. 2015;8:1150–63.CrossRef
64.
Bruni I, Galimberti A, Caridi L, Scaccabarozzi D, De Mattia F, Casiraghi M, et al. A DNA barcoding approach to identify plant species in multiflower honey. Food Chem. 2015;170:308–15.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Hawkins J, de Vere N, Griffith A, Ford CR, Allainguillaume J, Hegarty MJ, et al. Using DNA metabarcoding to identify the floral composition of honey: a new tool for investigating honey bee foraging preferences. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8):e0134735.
66.
67.
Kraaijeveld K, De Weger LA, Ventayol García M, Buermans H, Frank J, Hiemstra PS, et al. Efficient and sensitive identification and quantification of airborne pollen using next-generation DNA sequencing. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015;15(1):8–16.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Keller A, Danner N, Grimmer G, Ankenbrand M, von der, Von Der Ohe K, Von Der Ohe W, et al. Evaluating multiplexed next-generation sequencing as a method in palynology for mixed pollen samples. Plant Biol. 2015;17(2):558–66.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Sickel W, Ankenbrand MJ, Grimmer G, Holzschuh A, Härtel S, Lanzen J, et al. Increased efficiency in identifying mixed pollen samples by meta-barcoding with a dual-indexing approach. BMC Ecol. 2015;15(1):1–9.CrossRef
70.
Richardson RT, Lin CH, Quijia JO, Riusech NS, Goodell K, Johnson RM. Rank-based characterization of pollen assemblages collected by honey bees using a multi-locus metabarcoding approach. Appl Plant Sci. 2015;3(11):1500043.CrossRef
71.
Richardson RT, Lin CH, Sponsler DB, Quijia JO, Goodell K, Johnson RM. Application of ITS2 metabarcoding to determine the provenance of pollen collected by honey bees in an agroecosystem. Appl Plant Sci. 2015;3(1):1400066.CrossRef
72.
Brooks JP, Edwards DJ, Harwich MD, Rivera MC, Fettweis JM, Serrano MG, et al. The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies. BMC Microbiol. 2015;15(1):1–14.CrossRef
73.
CBOL Plant Working Group. A DNA barcode for land plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009:12794–7.
74.
Shokralla S, Spall JL, Gibson JF, Hajibabaei M. Next-generation sequencing technologies for environmental DNA research. Mol Ecol. 2012;21(8):1794–805.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Hollingsworth ML, Andra Clark A, Forrest LL, Richardson J, Pennington RT, Long DG, et al. Selecting barcoding loci for plants: evaluation of seven candidate loci with species-level sampling in three divergent groups of land plants. Mol Ecol Resour. 2009;9(2):439–57.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Hollingsworth PM, Graham SW, Little DP. Choosing and using a plant DNA barcode. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(5):e19254.
77.
Kress WJ, Erickson DL, Jones FA, Swenson NG, Perez R, Sanjur O, et al. Plant DNA barcodes and a community phylogeny of a tropical forest dynamics plot in Panama. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(44):18621–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
78.
Benson DA, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. GenBank. Nucleic acids research. 2015;43(Database issue):D30.
79.
Mashima J, Kodama Y, Kosuge T, Fujisawa T, Katayama T, Nagasaki H, et al. DNA data bank of Japan (DDBJ) progress report. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D51–7.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Squizzato S, Park YM, Buso N, Gur T, Cowley A, Li W, et al. The EBI search engine: providing search and retrieval functionality for biological data from EMBL-EBI. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(W1):W585–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Ankenbrand MJ, Keller A, Wolf M, Schultz J, Förster F. ITS2 database V: Twice as much. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32(11):3030–2.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Longhi S, Cristofori A, Gatto P, Cristofolini F, Grando MS, Gottardini E. Biomolecular identification of allergenic pollen: a new perspective for aerobiological monitoring? Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009;103(6):508–14.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Wilson EE, Sidhu CS, LeVAN KE, Holway DA. Pollen foraging behaviour of solitary Hawaiian bees revealed through molecular pollen analysis. Mol Ecol. 2010;19(21):4823–9.PubMedCrossRef
84.
Valentini A, Miquel C, Taberlet P. DNA barcoding for honey biodiversity. Diversity. 2010;2(4):610–7.CrossRef
85.
Meiklejohn KA, Jackson ML, Stern LA, Robertson JM. A protocol for obtaining DNA barcodes from plant and insect fragments isolated from forensic-type soils. Int J Legal Med. 2018;132(6):1515–26.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Brown AG. The use of forensic botany and geology in war crimes investigations in NE Bosnia. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;163(3):204–10.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Montali E, Mercuri AM, Grandi GT, Accorsi CA. Towards a “crime pollen calendar”—pollen analysis on corpses throughout one year. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;163(3):211–23.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Wiltshire PE, Hawksworth DL, Webb JA, Edwards KJ. Two sources and two kinds of trace evidence: enhancing the links between clothing, footwear and crime scene. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;254:231–42.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Adams-Groom B. Assessment of pollen assemblages on footwear for evidence of pollen deriving from a mock crime scene: a contribution to forensic palynology. Grana. 2018;57(3):223–34.CrossRef
90.
Reinhard KJ, Amaral MMd, Wall N. Palynological investigation of mummified human remains. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63(1):244–50.
91.
Kakizaki E, Sonoda A, Sakai M, Yukawa N. Simple detection of bacterioplankton using a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay: first practical approach to 72 cases of suspected drowning. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;289:289–303.PubMedCrossRef
92.
93.
Coissac E, Riaz T, Puillandre N. Bioinformatic challenges for DNA metabarcoding of plants and animals. Mol Ecol. 2012;21(8):1834–47.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Stepping towards pollen DNA metabarcoding: A breakthrough in forensic sciences
Authors
Qandeel Zaineb Wasti
Muhammad Farooq Sabar
Abeera Farooq
Muhammad Umer Khan
Publication date
26-12-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
Print ISSN: 1547-769X
Electronic ISSN: 1556-2891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-023-00770-8